 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / March 2008mindprod.com now 100% free
I have converted the last of the shareware over to freeware on mindprod.com. It all comes with well-commented source. I still cling to the non-military use only clause. I can't bear the thought of giving permission for my work to be used to murder, torture and maim. It is bad enough knowing the military uses it anyway. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products The Java Glossary http://mindprod.com > I have converted the last of the shareware over to freeware on > mindprod.com. It all comes with well-commented source. > > I still cling to the non-military use only clause. I can't bear the > thought of giving permission for my work to be used to murder, torture > and maim. It is bad enough knowing the military uses it anyway. Then it is not open source according to OSI's OSD. http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php item #6. Arne >Then it is not open source according to OSI's OSD. The word open has so many connotations: 1. no cost 2. get to peak at source. 3. are allowed to reuse and modify source. 4. there are no restrictions of any kind on what you do with the source, even illegal or extremely vile purposes. Perhaps we need very specific words for the various properties. I guess the various licences at least encapsulate some of the common combinations. I find it odd so many people are willing to work FOR child prostitution rings by giving them their software without restriction, ditto the military. That attitude reminds me of the Nazis who did the plumbing at the death camps. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products The Java Glossary http://mindprod.com On Mar 12, 2:40 pm, Roedy Green <see_webs...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote: .. > I find it odd so many people are willing to work FOR > ... the military. <http://groups.google.com.au/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/ 41359efd8ebefb51> Roedy.. "I got to program a computer used to control nuclear submarines without having to sell my soul by joining the navy or creating products to kill." So that was a nuclear *pleasure* submarine, was it? Perhaps a navy deep sea submersible to study cetacean feeding habits? It seems if the sub was controlled by the navy, you may not have *sold* your soul, but you did *rent it out*.. On a more relevant note. I decided long ago that I could not afford to examine such source. If by purpose or accident any part of it found its way into my codebase - I would not want my code to become encumbered by other people's restrictions. Not that I am any fan of war, but I just don't see software licensing bringing about an end to it, and if I were somehow projected into a warzone, I would use any code within reach that might help me or mine survive. Of course, I will not pretend that my failure to use your code will make so much as one iota's difference to the planet in general, but just thought you should know there was one more 'vote' against applying restrictions to source. Having had my say - I do think your moves towards open(er) source and freeware is admirable. -- Andrew T. On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:38:56 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Thompson <andrewthommo@gmail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >It seems if the sub was controlled by the navy, >you may not have *sold* your soul, but you did >*rent it out*.. no. My work was 100% for peaceful purposes. I was able to salvage evil and turn it into good. Had is used my code for guiding a submarine ,then I would have sold my soul. I was horrified one of my coworkers expressed a desire to work on such a project. He was quite mild mannered. To him it was just a big toy. . -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products The Java Glossary http://mindprod.com > 4. there are no restrictions of any kind on what you do with the > source, even illegal or extremely vile purposes. I don't think that's much of an issue here. Look at like this: should a doctor set someone's finger bones, knowing that if they were perfectly healed, that person could strangle someone to death? I don't think you could be held liable if your code was used for illegal purposes so long as that code was not intended to be used as such. > I find it odd so many people are willing to work FOR child > prostitution rings by giving them their software without restriction, > ditto the military. With respect to the military, people find it a good place to work because it tends to be at the cutting edge of technology. You can find plenty of stuff to work on that doesn't involve weapons systems or the like. For example, I interned last summer at the Naval Research Laboratory (a part of the U.S. Navy). What was I working on? A system to discover biological protein signaling networks. That won't be put to use killing people, so I see no objections to that. As you yourself point out, there are ways you can work on "100% peaceful purposes" even within the military.  SignatureBeware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth > With respect to the military, people find it a good place to work > because it tends to be at the cutting edge of technology. You can find [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > As you yourself point out, there are ways you can work on "100% peaceful > purposes" even within the military. I've been reading this thread for a while and I just wanted to voice another point of view without starting a flame war. I respect the intention of Rody (sp?) to avoid his code being used to maim and kill, but I, for one, don't really find assisting the military (or for that matter other countries militaries) to be morally objectionable. Sometimes violence is necessary to prevent even greater human tragedies. Civil disobedience and peaceful protest are great, but these methods simply won't stop every despot with murder and mayhem on his mind. So the development of good weapons may actually make the world a safer and more secure place for us all to live in. I know that many people have differing opinions on this matter, but I thought it important to point out that the morality of working with, for, or for the benefit of, the military isn't as clear cut as this thread would lead one to believe. I personally would have no problem with my software being used in most weapons. I might get a real kick out of it. SignatureKenneth P. Turvey <kt-usenet@squeakydolphin.com> On 12 Mar 2008 22:05:31 GMT, "Kenneth P. Turvey" <kt-usenet@squeakydolphin.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >Sometimes violence is necessary to prevent even greater human tragedies. >Civil disobedience and peaceful protest are great, but these methods simply >won't stop every despot with murder and mayhem on his mind. So the >development of good weapons may actually make the world a safer and more >secure place for us all to live in. But that has not happened for 60 years. Today the militaries are being used almost exclusively for illegal aggressive war. Just as Quakers are permitted to refrain from military activity, I feel I should too. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products The Java Glossary http://mindprod.com > But that has not happened for 60 years. Today the militaries are > being used almost exclusively for illegal aggressive war. This could be a long debate, but I would argue that these weapons have made our lives safer and more secure. I don't think that the answer is as clear cut as you make it out to be. It is relatively easy to measure the death toll, but impossible to measure the number of lives saved by the deterrence these weapons provide. > Just as Quakers are permitted to refrain from military activity, I > feel I should too. I have no problem with your placing restrictions on the software you write. It is your work; you can decide who benefits from it. SignatureKenneth P. Turvey <kt-usenet@squeakydolphin.com> On 14 Mar 2008 02:21:46 GMT, "Kenneth P. Turvey" <kt-usenet@squeakydolphin.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >This could be a long debate, but I would argue that these weapons have >made our lives safer and more secure. The Iraq and Afghan wars have made you LESS secure. Even if they didn't you still have no business killing innocent kids to give you the warm fuzzies. SignatureRoedy Green Canadian Mind Products The Java Glossary http://mindprod.com > The Iraq and Afghan wars have made you LESS secure. The Iraqi war has made us less secure, to be sure, but the Afghan war probably has helped our security. This of course doesn't have anything to do with the assertion you made earlier. You asserted that weapons and weapon systems have made us less safe and less secure. Not every war is just and not every killing is just, but it doesn't follow that the weapons and weapon systems we produce make us less secure. SignatureKenneth P. Turvey <kt-usenet@squeakydolphin.com> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:09:56 GMT, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >I don't think that's much of an issue here. Look at like this: should a >doctor set someone's finger bones, knowing that if they were perfectly >healed, that person could strangle someone to death? I don't think you >could be held liable if your code was used for illegal purposes so long >as that code was not intended to be used as such. You are CREATING a tool. It is similar to manufacturing land mines, or more closely explosives. You bear responsibility for what happens to any explosives you manufacture. It is your job to make sure they are not used for terrorism. Consider the effort that goes into killing an Iraqi child. Some of it is peeling potatoes, some manufacturing transport, some manufacturing weapons, some making political decisions. It requires ALL of it for the kid to be killed. If you contributed toward that end, you share in the guilt. The usually human response is for EVERYONE involved to shirk his responsibility on someone else. NOBODY takes responsibility, yet ALL were necessary. Another excuse is that if I did not do the wicked thing, somebody else would. The more people refuse, the more difficult and costly it is for the evil doers to recruit help. If everyone took responsibility for the personal consequences of their actions, leaders could never recruit for wrongdoing. My other answer is you are not responsible primarily for your own actions. Whether other people do evil or not should have nothing to do with whether you choose to. Personal responsibility in an evil world is a profoundly Christian value. I find it odd it is so often rejected in a nominally Christian country. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products The Java Glossary http://mindprod.com On Mar 13, 4:06 pm, Roedy Green <see_webs...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote: ... > Consider the effort that goes into killing an Iraqi child. Some of it > is peeling potatoes, some manufacturing transport, some manufacturing > weapons, some making political decisions. It requires ALL of it for > the kid to be killed. If you contributed toward that end, you share in > the guilt. You've convinced me - I will *never* peel potatoes again - it's baked 'taters in the jacket, from here on in. I promise. ;-) However it does remind me of a thought I had when you maintained the programming for a nuclear sub was '100% peaceful'. Huh?! This 'nuclear sub' does carry weapons, right? Torpedoes that can sink ships, maybe mines, quite possibly ICBMs? I cannot think of any uses of nuclear subs by navies that do *not* involve carrying weapons that might (one way or another) bring harm to (what was it?) that child in Iraq. If so, then I would consider any program ranging from one that tracks food stocks in the galley (such as, for instance, *potatoes* and what state of peeled'ness they are in) right down to a trivial breakout game to keep the crew amused while off-duty, to be *contributing* (at least in some small way) to the war machine you so despise. I am specifically curious about two things. Did this sub carry *any* form of weapons? Are you able*/willing to tell us what the software was? * Secrecy agreements notwithstanding. -- Andrew T. On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:33:41 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Thompson <andrewthommo@gmail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >You've convinced me - I will *never* peel potatoes >again - it's baked 'taters in the jacket, from here >on in. I promise. ;-) There was a military man addressing on the CPAC channel selling the Canadian military's plan to extend the Afghan war for 3 more years. He told joke after joke, and flirted in the cutesy manner of Herman Noone of Herman's Hermits. However, I felt discussing sacrificing children for political games and sadistic lusts is not an amusing subject. I was revolted and enraged. I feel similarly, but less intensely about what you just did. SignatureRoedy Green Canadian Mind Products The Java Glossary http://mindprod.com >> Then it is not open source according to OSI's OSD. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 4. there are no restrictions of any kind on what you do with the > source, even illegal or extremely vile purposes. The term open source has been give a precise definition in the "Open Source Definition" by the "Open Source Initiative". To avoid confusion it makes sense to use that definition. Arne >> 2. get to peak at source. I think this is the most important feature of open software. It means you can learn from code. You can just code quality. You can track bugs. You have a out should the project stop being supported. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products The Java Glossary http://mindprod.com >>> 2. get to peak at source. > > I think this is the most important feature of open software. It means > you can learn from code. You can just code quality. You can track > bugs. You have a out should the project stop being supported. Most open source people emphasize the "passing rights on" aspect. Not only does the author give the first level of users some rights. The first level of users can pass the same rights on to a second level of users. And so on. Arne > >>> 2. get to peak at source. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > pass the same rights on to a second level of users. And > so on. OK - not that I am proposing that Roedy should change the term, or that we expect he will, but out of curiousity, what would you call code that is openly available for examination, but has conditions of usage? Is there a common term for that? -- Andrew T. PhySci.org >> Most open source people emphasize the "passing rights on" >> aspect. Not only does the author give the first level [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is openly available for examination, but has > conditions of usage? There can't be a term for every possible license. I would just call Roedy's code free, or free for non-military applications, if you want to be pedantic. SignatureKenneth P. Turvey <kt-usenet@squeakydolphin.com> >>> Most open source people emphasize the "passing rights on" >>> aspect. Not only does the author give the first level [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Roedy's code free, or free for non-military applications, if you want to > be pedantic. Free as in free beer. Free as in free speach for many people, but not as defined by FSF (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). Arne >>>>> 2. get to peak at source. >>> I think this is the most important feature of open software. It means [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Is there a common term for that? I don't have a good term. MS uses the term "Shared Source" to specify access to source code but not necessarily open source. But nobody else uses that. So: RPFL = Roedys PeaceFul License Arne > RPFL = Roedys PeaceFul License Usually an "F" in an acronym is left silent in the expansion, or is expanded with a euphemism: Roedy's Peaceful [Frelling] License Once in a while the substitution is ridiculous: WTF => "What the heck?" SignatureLew My work philosophy: NMFP => "Not my problem!" > OK - not that I am proposing that Roedy should change the term, or that > we expect he will, but out of curiousity, what would you call code that > is openly available for examination, but has conditions of usage? > > Is there a common term for that? Copyright. -Thufir > > I have converted the last of the shareware over to freeware on > > mindprod.com. It all comes with well-commented source. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Then it is not open source .. It is also not a 'pineapple'. But then, since Roedy described it as 'well-commented source', that hardly seems relevant. I feel like I've been had for ever considering whether the mindprod.com source fits the OSI OSD. My apologies for wasting the bandwidth. (Thanks to Kenneth for his latest considered response to that sub-thread - you made some good points.) -- Andrew T. PhySci.org > I have converted the last of the shareware over to freeware on > mindprod.com. It all comes with well-commented source. > > I still cling to the non-military use only clause. I can't bear the > thought of giving permission for my work to be used to murder, torture > and maim. It is bad enough knowing the military uses it anyway. When will the source be part of the Replicator zips? I only see class files in the Replicated jars. SignatureJames *Note: Remove every other letter for correct email address Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.